' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.--- This appeal is directed against judgment, dated 1-12-1999 passed by Sessions Judge/Judge, Special Court, Mansehra whereby Sohrab son of Munawar Khan appellant has been found guilty for committing an offence under section 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. For 10 years and to pay fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof further S.I. For one year. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has also been extended to him.
2. The prosecution story in brief is, that on the night of occurrence, i,e,, 28-1-1998 S.H.O. Muhammad Fazal Khan. Police Station Shinkiari alongwith Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Akbar P. Ws. Was on a routine Gusht near Patrol Pump Marghazar when he was informed that the appellant is busy in selling narcotic near Canteen of Mental Hospital Dhodial. On this information the police party reached the spot and found the appellant present there. On personal search, Charas and heroin lying in separate shopping bags concealed under a Chaddar were found from accused-appellant.
The Charas was found 1050 grams and heroin was found 60 grams on the weighment. Four grams from Charas and one gram from heroin were separated and sealed into parcel and sent to Chemical Examiner, Peshawar for opinion and report. The remaining Charas and heroin were also sealed into separate parcels vide Exh.P.B. In the presence of marginal witnesses. The S.H.O. Arrested the accused-appellant, drafted Murasila Exh.P.A./1 and sent the same to the police station for the registration of the case. He recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses and made an application to the Medical Officer Mental Hospital Dhodial for opinion as to whether the accused- appellant was edicted to narcotics or not. He also secured the copy of F.I.R. No,316, dated 21-6-1996 (Exh.P.W.2/1) vide memo. Exh.P.B. In order to show the involvement of the accused-appellant in cases of narcotics.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced four police officials namely, A.S.-I Hakam Khan, M.H.C. Khan Asghar, I.H.C. Raja Mumtaz Ali and S.H.O. Muhammad Fazal Khan. The accused- appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been falsely charged. In answer to a question, as to what is your statement and why are you charged he stated:-- "I am innocent and have been falsely charged. On the night of occurrence, I was sitting in a Suzuki Pick-up and was travelling from Mansehra to my native village Dhodial in the company of Babu Gul driver and another person namely Aurangzeb. A Yellow Cab Taxi was chasing our vehicle and at last we were stopped at the Bridge of Gandian and from there we all the three were taken to Police Station Shinkiari by the police and this case was concocted against me in the police station."
' The accused-appellant produced the abovenamed witnesses in support of his defence.
4. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Having held so. He convicted and sentenced the accused as noted above.
5. We have heard Malik Muhammad Asif, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Ayub, Deputy Advocate-General for the State in the light of the material on the file.
6. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are as under:--
(a) That the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Judge failed to apply his mind to the evidence on the record, and pass the impugned judgment against all norms of justice which is unwarranted under the law.
(b) That the recovery is doubtful as the mandatory requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. Had not been complied with by the Seizing Officer and the witnesses being Police Officials cannot be relied upon and there is delay in dispatching the recovered narcotics to Chemical Examiner and that the constable who is stated to have taken the narcotic to Peshawar for the purpose of examination and opinion has been withheld by the prosecution without any justifiable reason and that
(c) in a criminal case it is the duty of the Court to review the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and the defence. If, after an examination of the whole evidence the Court is of the opinion that there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence put forward by the accused might be true, it is clear that such a view reacts on the whole prosecution case. In these circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace but as of right, because the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. The learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State on the contrary, supported the impugned judgment and maintained that the learned Special Judge has discussed the evidence and has given valid reasons for its conclusion which hardly call for interference.
8. The learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence and has given valid reasons for his conclusion. The judgment of the learned Special Judge does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity, the same is neither perverse nor arbitrary. The provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C.
Have no application to the narcotic cases under the said Act as per provisions contained under section 25 of the abovementioned Act. So far as the evidence of the police witnesses is concerned we find that the police officials who have no ill-will against accused would be competent witnesses and their evidence cannot be discarded only for the reason that they are police officials. They have supported the prosecution case and there is nothing on record to show that they are deposing against the accused maliciously or out of animus. It cannot be believed that officials would plant narcotic on the accused from their own sources, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel has no force that the case is doubtful. Immediately after the apprehension, the Charas and heroin in question was recovered from the person of the accused hidden under a Chaddar. Certain quantity of Charas and heroin was separated, sealed into separate parcels and dispatched to Forensic Science Laboratory, Peshawar for opinion. The opinion of the Analyst is in positive. So far as the role of the Investigating Officer as complainant and witness is concerned, we find that there is no legal prohibition for a Police Officer to be a complainant if he is a witness to the commission of an offence and also to be an Investigating Officer so long as, it does not, in any way prejudice the accused person.
9. Resultantly, finding no force in this appeal we dismiss the same but keeping in view the quantum of Charas and heroin recovered from the appellant, we reduce the sentence of 10 years' R.I. To the sentence of six years' R.I. The sentence regarding fine shall remain in tact. The appellant shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Sentence reduced.